R v Tui - [2018] NSWSC 1619

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tui [2018] NSWSC 1619
Hearing dates: 15 October – 17 October 2018, 19 October 2018, 22 October 2018
Date of orders: 25 October 2018
Decision date: 25 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. Pursuant to s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), a special verdict of not guilty of the charge of murder by reason of mental illness is returned.
2. Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), James Vaa Tui is to be detained in a correctional facility or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.
3. I direct that the Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders.
4. I direct that the Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of my verdict and of these orders. I also direct that the Registrar provide the Tribunal with a copy of these reasons and my orders and a copy of exhibits S, T, Y, Z, AC, 2, 3, and 6, tendered during the special hearing.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – defence of mental illness – relevance of evidence of planning – special verdict
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW)
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v James Va’a Tui [2017] NSWSC 1366
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
James Va’a Tui
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G. Tabuteau – Crown
Ms S. Beckett – Accused
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Ms A. Coultas-Roberts – Accused

File Number(s): 2016/00215503
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR:

The Background to the Special Hearing

On 16 July 2016, the accused was arrested and charged with the murder that day of Faatalatala Faalav, at Shalvey.
On 22 September 2017 the accused was found unfit to be tried for that charge by Lonergan J, and was detained, pursuant to s 14(b)(iii) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Act”): R v James Va’a Tui [2017] NSWSC 1366. The matter was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“MHRT” or “the Tribunal”) to determine whether he would become fit within the period of twelve months.
On 10 May 2018 the Tribunal found, pursuant to s 16(1) of the Act, that the accused was unfit to be tried. The Tribunal concluded that the accused would not become fit to be tried in the 12 month period that ends on 22 September 2018. An order was made detaining the accused at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre.
The Tribunal advised the Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions of its opinion and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Tui

Details

AGLC: R v Tui [2018] NSWSC 1619
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1619
Decision Date: 25 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tui involved the accused, Tui, who was charged with the murder of an individual. The case was heard by a judge sitting alone, without a jury, at the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in the trial was whether Tui, who claimed to be suffering from a mental illness, could be held responsible for the murder. The defence argued that Tui's mental state at the time of the crime was such that he lacked the requisite mens rea for murder. The prosecution, on the other hand, sought to establish that Tui had premeditated the crime and was, therefore, fully responsible for his actions.

The court was required to determine the admissibility and relevance of evidence regarding Tui's planning and preparation for the crime. The defence contended that such evidence was irrelevant if Tui was not capable of forming the necessary intent to commit murder due to his mental illness. The prosecution argued that evidence of planning was crucial to establishing the premeditation element of the crime, regardless of Tui's mental state. The court needed to balance these competing interests and decide whether the evidence of planning was pertinent to the determination of Tui's responsibility for the murder.

In its decision, the court held that evidence of planning could be relevant even if Tui's mental state precluded him from forming the requisite intent for murder. The court reasoned that planning and preparation could demonstrate the capacity to form intent, which is a key component in establishing premeditation. Consequently, the court found that such evidence was pertinent to the determination of whether Tui could be held responsible for the murder. The court also concluded that Tui's mental illness did not absolve him of responsibility if he was capable of planning and executing the crime. Ultimately, the court found Tui guilty of murder, acknowledging the evidence of planning while considering his mental health.

The final orders of the court were that Tui be sentenced to life imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the court's determination that he was responsible for his actions despite his mental illness. The court emphasised that the evidence of planning was a critical factor in reaching its decision, underscoring the importance of this evidence in assessing the defendant's responsibility and intent.

Orders